There is nothing fake about me laughing at you and the other fools defending this nonsense. My laughter is very real. This fantasy liberals have that Israel will just fall and it will be nice and peaceful is just cute

But please, tell me more about how you dislike ethnostates, says the poster who is literally defending an idiot pundit, who, when at the UN, joked about war and potential genocide

Member

There is nothing fake about me laughing at you and the other fools defending this nonsense. My laughter is very real. This fantasy liberals have that Israel will just fall and it will be nice and peaceful is just cute

But please, tell me more about how you dislike ethnostates, says the poster who is literally defending an idiot pundit, who, when at the UN, joked about war and potential genocide

I made a generalized comment about liberals because Mr Hill is one, and his role on CNN was often as a liberal guy. "Peaceful compromise" is what liberals tend to say they want publicly, but well Mr Hill diverted from the usual talking points and gave what he, and I assume most liberals actually believe.

Member

I made a generalized comment about liberals because Mr Hill is one, and his role on CNN was often as a liberal guy. "Peaceful compromise" is what liberals tend to say they want publicly, but well Mr Hill diverted from the usual talking points and gave what he, and I assume most liberals actually believe.

Every post you made in this thread so far has been you acting like an obtuse dick. You've complained about people "virtue signaling" in this thread, being disingenuous or being "Israel slappy". It's way to late to get on a high horse now.

Member

Every post you made in this thread so far has been you acting like an obtuse dick. You've complained about people "virtue signaling" in this thread, being disingenuous or being "Israel slappy". It's way to late to get on a high horse now.

Some liberals/leftists/Democrats may have a problem with Israel, especially it's treatment and subjugation of the Palestinians, but, as far as I'm aware, the Democrats don't have any holocaust deniers running on their ticket.

The GOP though? Oh boy:

"In North Carolina, for example, GOP officials are stuck with Russell Walker, a white supremacist running for the state House of Representatives. According to his personal website (littered with the n-word), he believes that “the jews are NOT semitic they are satanic as they all descend from Satan.” "

"In Illinois, meanwhile, the Republican Party shrugged off Arthur Jones, a candidate for the state’s 3rd Congressional district who boasted of his membership in the American Nazi Party. But Jones won the GOP primary, and now party officials, including ones who called Jones “morally reprehensible” and “a complete nutcase,” are scrambling to launch a write-in campaign. Jones’s campaign website features a section called “Holocaust?” in which he argues that the “idea that six million Jews, were killed by the National Socialist government of Germany, in World War II, is the biggest, blackest lie in history.”

Member

Every post you made in this thread so far has been you acting like an obtuse dick. You've complained about people "virtue signaling" in this thread, being disingenuous or being "Israel slappy". It's way to late to get on a high horse now.

My posts were about the US media environment. Then you and the other member of thr outrage brigade jumped in, preferring, as is your wont, to sling insults and “HOW DARE YOU SIR?!?” rather than discuss the topic. Weak stuff all around.

Member

It is funny how people stan for ethnic nationalism when it suits their needs. The pundit was basically using the Palestine version of the 14 words, a phrase loaded with history, chanted at rallies that decry the elimination of Israel. The phrase has too much history to handwave it as nothing. It is a perfectly reasonable stance to be pro Palestine but this phrase is not the way to be supportive.

Plus you know that your party has actual REAL anti-semites running as candidates?

"In North Carolina, for example, GOP officials are stuck with Russell Walker, a white supremacist running for the state House of Representatives. According to his personal website (littered with the n-word), he believes that “the jews are NOT semitic they are satanic as they all descend from Satan.” "

"In Illinois, meanwhile, the Republican Party shrugged off Arthur Jones, a candidate for the state’s 3rd Congressional district who boasted of his membership in the American Nazi Party. But Jones won the GOP primary, and now party officials, including ones who called Jones “morally reprehensible” and “a complete nutcase,” are scrambling to launch a write-in campaign. Jones’s campaign website features a section called “Holocaust?” in which he argues that the “idea that six million Jews, were killed by the National Socialist government of Germany, in World War II, is the biggest, blackest lie in history.”

Member

Plus you know that your party has actual REAL anti-semites running as candidates?

"In North Carolina, for example, GOP officials are stuck with Russell Walker, a white supremacist running for the state House of Representatives. According to his personal website (littered with the n-word), he believes that “the jews are NOT semitic they are satanic as they all descend from Satan.” "

"In Illinois, meanwhile, the Republican Party shrugged off Arthur Jones, a candidate for the state’s 3rd Congressional district who boasted of his membership in the American Nazi Party. But Jones won the GOP primary, and now party officials, including ones who called Jones “morally reprehensible” and “a complete nutcase,” are scrambling to launch a write-in campaign. Jones’s campaign website features a section called “Holocaust?” in which he argues that the “idea that six million Jews, were killed by the National Socialist government of Germany, in World War II, is the biggest, blackest lie in history.”

Another deflection, and something you already posted on here. And are you saying Daivd Duke wants freedom for the Palestinian people? Or Lamont who used an antisemetic dog whistle?

Fuck all these republican anti semeties. I am not republican or american. But anti semetis are on both the left and right, Jews don't get it easy from either side.

Are you going to say the same about Mr Lamont who said that we needed to find the context in which Farakhan said Judaism was a gutter relegion? As if there is a context that saying that would be appropriate.

Your last sentance says it all. Go after other people and leave this guy alone for his anti semetism hes one of us good guys LOL.

Yet I've never seen you denounce Trump over his catering to white supremacists/neo-nazis? You want to make a point about MLH, that David Duke agreed with him, ergo, MLH is an anti-semite. I then show you the numerous times David Duke has praised Trump, someone you have openly supported on this forum multiple times, and now you call that a derail.....

Another deflection, and something you already posted on here. And are you saying Daivd Duke wants freedom for the Palestinian people? Or Lamont who used an antisemetic dog whistle?

Fuck all these republican anti semeties. I am not republican or american. But anti semetis are on both the left and right, Jews don't get it easy from either side.

Are you going to say the same about Mr Lamont who said that we needed to find the context in which Farakhan said Judaism was a gutter relegion? As if there is a context that saying that would be appropriate.

Your last sentance says it all. Go after other people and leave this guy alone for his anti semetism hes one of us good guys LOL.

My point is, you pick and choose who you deem anti-semites. A guy is in solidarity with the Palestinian people (MLH, not Duke) and he is evil incarnate? GOP has candidates who call "Jews are children of Satan" or that the holocaust was a hoax etc, yet no threads from you about that.

It's almost like you have no issue with actual anti-semites, aslong as they don't show any solidarity for the Palestinians? "Be as anti-semitic as you want, just don't support the Palestinians". You and Bibi are very similar in that sense. His vocal support for Viktor Orban, a virulent anti-semite, just because Orban hates the Palestinians more.....

And please, don't try to compare the right and left on this. Name me one anti-semitic candidate running on the Democratic ticket. And remember, being anti-Israel or Pro-Palestinian doesn't make you an anti-semite.....

In conclusion, my point is that you cherry pick, like I've told you before. David Duke showing support for one MLH tweets makes MLH guilty, yet you seem to ignore the numerous times Duke has supported Trump, all because Trump hates the Palestinians more....

Member

Yet I've never seen you denounce Trump over his catering to white supremacists/neo-nazis? You want to make a point about MLH, that David Duke agreed with him, ergo, MLH is an anti-semite. I then show you the numerous times David Duke has praised Trump, someone you have openly supported on this forum multiple times, and now you call that a derail.....

My point is, you pick and choose who you deem anti-semites. A guy is in solidarity with the Palestinian people (MLH, not Duke) and he is evil incarnate? GOP has candidates who call "Jews are children of Satan" or that the holocaust was a hoax etc, yet no threads from you about that.

It's almost like you have no issue with actual anti-semites, aslong as they don't show any solidarity for the Palestinians? "Be as anti-semitic as you want, just don't support the Palestinians". You and Bibi are very similar in that sense. His vocal support for Viktor Orban, a virulent anti-semite, just because Orban hates the Palestinians more.....

And please, don't try to compare the right and left on this. Name me one anti-semitic candidate running on the Democratic ticket. And remember, being anti-Israel or Pro-Palestinian doesn't make you an anti-semite.....

In conclusion, my point is that you cherry pick, like I've told you before. David Duke showing support for one MLH tweets makes MLH guilty, yet you seem to ignore the numerous times Duke has supported Trump, all because Trump hates the Palestinians more....

Member

Some liberals/leftists/Democrats may have a problem with Israel, especially it's treatment and subjugation of the Palestinians, but, as far as I'm aware, the Democrats don't have any holocaust deniers running on their ticket.

The GOP though? Oh boy:

"In North Carolina, for example, GOP officials are stuck with Russell Walker, a white supremacist running for the state House of Representatives. According to his personal website (littered with the n-word), he believes that “the jews are NOT semitic they are satanic as they all descend from Satan.” "

"In Illinois, meanwhile, the Republican Party shrugged off Arthur Jones, a candidate for the state’s 3rd Congressional district who boasted of his membership in the American Nazi Party. But Jones won the GOP primary, and now party officials, including ones who called Jones “morally reprehensible” and “a complete nutcase,” are scrambling to launch a write-in campaign. Jones’s campaign website features a section called “Holocaust?” in which he argues that the “idea that six million Jews, were killed by the National Socialist government of Germany, in World War II, is the biggest, blackest lie in history.”

Member

My posts were about the US media environment. Then you and the other member of thr outrage brigade jumped in, preferring, as is your wont, to sling insults and “HOW DARE YOU SIR?!?” rather than discuss the topic. Weak stuff all around.

I criticized a liberal and their "talking point" in our US media enviroment,, and you cried an whined as fucking usual. This is a common thing with you. You often act like a condescending ass, and then when you get attitude in return you act like a victim. Take your tears somewhere else

I'm bringing up the double standards of the right. There are GOPers who are actual anti-semites yet you stay silent and even vote for them (I'm not talking about "you" literally but "you" generally), yet get outraged about standing in solidarity with Palestinians.

My point about David Duke showing support for Trump garnering only silence from you, yet use his support for MLH's ONE statement as an excuse to crucify him.

He wants a Palestine from "the river to the sea" ie, the pre 1967 borders. It couldn't be any simpler. Your efforts in trying to find "racism" everywhere aren't really coming to fruition.

Member

I criticized a liberal and their "talking point" in our US media enviroment,, and you cried an whined as fucking usual. This is a common thing with you. You often act like a condescending ass, and then when you get attitude in return you act like a victim. Take your tears somewhere else

If you were criticizing "a liberal" why did you respond to me specifically? That's dumb.

You and the discourse police can insult me all you want (here you are yet again bitching about me personally. I must really stay on your mind huh?). Just don't confuse your childish insults with substance.

Member

Don't some politicians and commentators call for a one state solution that is pro Israel? Why is calling for a one state solution for the other group frowned upon? Sadly I have to admit I haven't really been keeping up on the conflict over there as much as I should

Your hilarious, i just stated what a normal human being would think and say. All you are doing and continue to do is deflect with bullshit replies, i feel sorry for you since all you want to see and hear is your own ignorance.

Member

Your hilarious, i just stated what a normal human being would think and say. All you are doing and continue to do is deflect with bullshit replies, i feel sorry for you since all you want to see and hear is your own ignorance.

Rodent Whores

Sounds like a lot of work and interperative dance to twist a fairly benign statement into being a fireable offense. Especially with his further statements on Twitter explaining his position. No freedom of speech for him? No benefit of the doubt?

Member

Sounds like a lot of work and interperative dance to twist a fairly benign statement into being a fireable offense. Especially with his further statements on Twitter explaining his position. No freedom of speech for him? No benefit of the doubt?

Well he said that the murder and kidnapping of 3 Jewish teenagers was not terrorism but "resistance". He called Rasmeh Odeh a noble and righteous. He characterized Khalid Abdul Mohammad as a teacher, mentor, and revolutionary hero (Khalid Abdul Muhammad was most famous for depicting Jews as people whose ancestors “slept in urination and defecation … for 2,000 years”; asserting that contemporary Jews were busy “sucking our [blacks’] blood on a daily and consistent basis”; accusing Jews of having provoked Adolf Hitler when they “went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped”; declaring that blacks, in retribution against South African whites of the apartheid era, should “kill the women,…kill the children,…kill the babies,…kill the blind,…kill the crippled,…kill the faggot,…kill the lesbian,…kill them all” ). And he also thought that there was an appropriate context for Farkahan to call Judaism a gutter relegion.

Not to mention in that very same speech he said that Palestinans should have more space to "resist" i.e. terrorism. And he complains against Israel's Iron Dome because its too good at stopping Hamas rockets and thats not fair as those rockets should be able to kill more. And of course he just happens to mistakenly use a phrase that everyone knows means destruction of Israel and ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Jews there.

Rodent Whores

Well he said that the murder and kidnapping of 3 Jewish teenagers was not terrorism but "resistance". He called Rasmeh Odeh a noble and righteous. He characterized Khalid Abdul Mohammad as a teacher, mentor, and revolutionary hero (Khalid Abdul Muhammad was most famous for depicting Jews as people whose ancestors “slept in urination and defecation … for 2,000 years”; asserting that contemporary Jews were busy “sucking our [blacks’] blood on a daily and consistent basis”; accusing Jews of having provoked Adolf Hitler when they “went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped”; declaring that blacks, in retribution against South African whites of the apartheid era, should “kill the women,…kill the children,…kill the babies,…kill the blind,…kill the crippled,…kill the faggot,…kill the lesbian,…kill them all” ). And he also thought that there was an appropriate context for Farkahan to call Judaism a gutter relegion.

Not to mention in that very same speech he said that Palestinans should have more space to "resist" i.e. terrorism. And he complains against Israel's Iron Dome because its too good at stopping Hamas rockets and thats not fair as those rockets should be able to kill more. And of course he just happens to mistakenly use a phrase that everyone knows means destruction of Israel and ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Jews there.

Many feel that people like Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris or Ben Shapiro or (insert other "controversial" speaker here) are often misunderstood or taken out of context, and that their more extreme haters often willfully or accidentally misinterpret their words due to starkly different ways of thinking.

Do you feel that this could possibly be occurring here too? Do you ever think of what it might like feel like to be the one on the other side of that coin?

Member

Well he said that the murder and kidnapping of 3 Jewish teenagers was not terrorism but "resistance". He called Rasmeh Odeh a noble and righteous. He characterized Khalid Abdul Mohammad as a teacher, mentor, and revolutionary hero (Khalid Abdul Muhammad was most famous for depicting Jews as people whose ancestors “slept in urination and defecation … for 2,000 years”; asserting that contemporary Jews were busy “sucking our [blacks’] blood on a daily and consistent basis”; accusing Jews of having provoked Adolf Hitler when they “went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped”; declaring that blacks, in retribution against South African whites of the apartheid era, should “kill the women,…kill the children,…kill the babies,…kill the blind,…kill the crippled,…kill the faggot,…kill the lesbian,…kill them all” ). And he also thought that there was an appropriate context for Farkahan to call Judaism a gutter relegion.

Not to mention in that very same speech he said that Palestinans should have more space to "resist" i.e. terrorism. And he complains against Israel's Iron Dome because its too good at stopping Hamas rockets and thats not fair as those rockets should be able to kill more. And of course he just happens to mistakenly use a phrase that everyone knows means destruction of Israel and ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Jews there.

Member

Many feel that people like Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris or Ben Shapiro or (insert other "controversial" speaker here) are often misunderstood or taken out of context, and that their more extreme haters often willfully or accidentally misinterpret their words due to starkly different ways of thinking.

Do you feel that this could possibly be occurring here too? Do you ever think of what it might like feel like to be the one on the other side of that coin?

For MLH, nope I think he knew exactly what he was talking about. He has a history of downplaying Palestinian terrorism and supporting antisemites.

Either way its like a white guy pretending that the N word is offensive and getting pissed at black people for getting offended by it. Jews know what that means and they know how they feel when its said. So he would of been better of saying from the river to the sea PALESTINE and ISRAEL will be free and then maybe I would buy what he is selling.

I am still wondering in what context calling Judasim a gutter relegion would not be considered antisemetic.

Member

I didn't read the exact reason CNN fired him (as far as I know he isn't banned, he was just let go of his position) thats their choice. CNN is getting some backlash from it so its their decision to stand by it or to reverse it.

1) Well I agree with him here. Under international law, a peoples is allowed to use any means, including violence, to achieve independence and self-determination. Otherwise an occupied people would just have to quietly accept their occupation, like lambs to the slaughter. So more anti-israel rather than anti-semitic.

2)Rasmeh Odeh was fighting for her liberation. Again, I may not agree with violence struggle, not because I'm a pacifist, but because I don't think it works, but they are allowed to use it. The early zionists comitted a shit tonne of violent resistance against the British in order to get independence. There are many streets named after these people who the British deemed terrorists, and two leaders of these terrorist groups even became PMs of Israel. So, again, an occupied people is allowed to use violence.

To the accusation that she was involved with the death of two Israeli teens, she denies it and says the confession was taken via torture and rape. Who knows the truth. I'm assuming if MLH defends her it's because he believes her to be innocent of these crimes, and not because he supports the killing of innocent people.

3) I couldn't find the actual source of that quote. I even tried googling "Marc Lamont Hill and Khalid Muhammad" but it was the same right wing pro-Israel outlets without an actual source to the quote.

4)Well if you look at the full quote, he is saying the iron dome allows Israel to act as aggressively as it wants against the palestinians without fear of repurcussion. He even talks about how, in the past, a violent solution wouldn't be Israel first go to move because of fear of revenge attacks, but now because of the iron dome, it can be as violent as it wants because it is safe behind the dome. (Which isn't even that effective if missile and ballistics UN experts are to be believed). So not anti-semitism. If anything, it's anti-israel.

5) I found the quote that Farrakhan made about Judaism being a gutter religion. The context doesn't make it a whole lot better. Some of his supporters are saying the religion he was actually referring to was "zionism" as he was talking about Israel at the time. I don't buy that, I think he probably does have a disdain for Jews in general. But did MLH know he was an anti-semite? I doubt it. Heck I didn't know that till today. I always just thought of him as black nationalist leader, but didn't know about his views on Judaism. Plus, MLH disavowed the anti-semitic messages Lousi Farrakhan made later so.....

So in conclusion, I still don't think MLH is anti-semite, I think people are really stretching to find something on him. His only real crime was to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. I'm guilty of that too.

Member

1) Well I agree with him here. Under international law, a peoples is allowed to use any means, including violence, to achieve independence and self-determination. Otherwise an occupied people would just have to quietly accept their occupation, like lambs to the slaughter. So more anti-israel rather than anti-semitic.

2)Rasmeh Odeh was fighting for her liberation. Again, I may not agree with violence struggle, not because I'm a pacifist, but because I don't think it works, but they are allowed to use it. The early zionists comitted a shit tonne of violent resistance against the British in order to get independence. There are many streets named after these people who the British deemed terrorists, and two leaders of these terrorist groups even became PMs of Israel. So, again, an occupied people is allowed to use violence.

To the accusation that she was involved with the death of two Israeli teens, she denies it and says the confession was taken via torture and rape. Who knows the truth. I'm assuming if MLH defends her it's because he believes her to be innocent of these crimes, and not because he supports the killing of innocent people.

3) I couldn't find the actual source of that quote. I even tried googling "Marc Lamont Hill and Khalid Muhammad" but it was the same right wing pro-Israel outlets without an actual source to the quote.

4)Well if you look at the full quote, he is saying the iron dome allows Israel to act as aggressively as it wants against the palestinians without fear of repurcussion. He even talks about how, in the past, a violent solution wouldn't be Israel first go to move because of fear of revenge attacks, but now because of the iron dome, it can be as violent as it wants because it is safe behind the dome. (Which isn't even that effective if missile and ballistics UN experts are to be believed). So not anti-semitism. If anything, it's anti-israel.

5) I found the quote that Farrakhan made about Judaism being a gutter religion. The context doesn't make it a whole lot better. Some of his supporters are saying the religion he was actually referring to was "zionism" as he was talking about Israel at the time. I don't buy that, I think he probably does have a disdain for Jews in general. But did MLH know he was an anti-semite? I doubt it. Heck I didn't know that till today. I always just thought of him as black nationalist leader, but didn't know about his views on Judaism. Plus, MLH disavowed the anti-semitic messages Lousi Farrakhan made later so.....

So in conclusion, I still don't think MLH is anti-semite, I think people are really stretching to find something on him. His only real crime was to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. I'm guilty of that too.

Well you think the same as MLH so not really much point in engaging further or breaking it down point. You basically made the same excuses he would of made. I know where you and him both stand on all the issues.

Anyways final point is even if MLH wants to act obtuse and stupid on this and pretend he didn't dog whistle, saying from the river to the sea Palestine will be free is the same as using the "final solution" to Jews. You and others don't get to define what we find offesnive just like whites cant tell black people the N word isn't offensive. So MLH should of known better not to use that term, he could of simply said from the river to the sea Palestine and ISRAEL will be free but that doesn't jive with the whole Palestine replacing Israel he was going for.

This is what day to day Palestinans say from the river to the sea means.

Member

Well you think the same as MLH so not really much point in engaging further or breaking it down point. You basically made the same excuses he would of made. I know where you and him both stand on all the issues.

Anyways final point is even if MLH wants to act obtuse and stupid on this and pretend he didn't dog whistle, saying from the river to the sea Palestine will be free is the same as using the "final solution" to Jews. You and others don't get to define what we find offesnive just like whites cant tell black people the N word isn't offensive. So MLH should of known better not to use that term, he could of simply said from the river to the sea Palestine and ISRAEL will be free but that doesn't jive with the whole Palestine replacing Israel he was going for.

This is what day to day Palestinans say from the river to the sea means.

I'll just like to leave with you one point though. When you accuse people like MLH of anti-semitism purely because he believes ALL people should have the right of self-determination, the word starts to lose all meaning, and there actually is real anti-semitism out there.....

Member

I'll just like to leave with you one point though. When you accuse people like MLH of anti-semitism purely because he believes ALL people should have the right of self-determination, the word starts to lose all meaning, and there actually is real anti-semitism out there.....

Thats not why I accuse him of antisemetism. I accused him based on what I listed. Nor have I heard MLH talk about the other or people around the world and their right to self determination. What are his views on Tibetians, Kurds, SADR, Basque, Chechens, Cypricots, or Azerbijan just to name a few. Does he support ALL of these groups, and their use of terror and violence against civilians as well?

Also I don't think its antisemetic to want Palestinan self determination. Bibi believes in it(all though as a state minus). Avigodor Liberman believes in Palestinian self determination with terriotorial/population swaps. I don't think either are antisemeites. And believe it or not I beleive in it too, just in the Eastern part of Palestine, which is ruled by a foreign king who was installed by a colonial power.

In the end maybe he isn't antisemetic, but his statement was and he associates a lot with people who are. Its very possible he could just be a naive person who doesn't know any better.